> > <snip> > > > > I am not quite sure, either, how you are using the FamilySearch 1880 > > listings. The LDS 1880 census material is an index and is not a > > "source document." > > > > "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com> > > Oh, it's more than an index! > > <snip> > > "Austin W. Spencer" <AustinWSpencer@sdc.cox.net> Dear Austin: The LDS 1880 database is an excellent information source. And it will do more than just help you find someone on the microfilms. But my point was that you shouldn't rely on it as the source of your information for you genealogy or cite it as the source unless the original is quite unavailable to you. Even the LDS "finding aid" has errors. And, as I noted in my message to Bob Gillis, it is hardly a complete transcription of the census records. Surely if you are using the census for information for your ancestors, you will want to at least be aware of all of the other things in the census record that are not in the INDEX. The ability to see who the neighbors are quickly is a helpful feature, but neither new nor unique. The first census indexes on CD were Head of Household indexes. Using the old Genealogy Research System DOS software you could easily see who the neighbors are. The Indiana Historical Society indexed the entire 1860 census of that state and you can view it in several different ways, including household order. This project included not only every name, but every item included about each person in the census. The Society does NOT call this a transcription, but an INDEX. Here's a tip with regard to your following comment: > If your ancestor lived in a large urban > area in 1880, transferring from LDS to one of these requires > entering the LDS film number to see which EDs are on that film, then > checking each ED for the appropriate page, Since each page number will appear only once on each microfilm, you can usually quickly find the page by either estimating its location or calculating it. The other night I was looking for someone in NYC who was on page 264 of a given roll which contained EDs 69 - 88. I guessed that page 264 was in ED 83, but was one too high - it was in ED 82. Once the images for ED 82 were loaded (at Ancestry.com), it was easy to do the calculation to reach page 264 on the first or second try. (I outlined for someone the entire process for finding someone at Ancestry.com from the info at Ancestry.com and if anyone would like a copy of that message, drop me an email. "Richard A. Pence" <richardpence@pipeline.com>